1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioners are butchers by profession and have been carrying on their business within the area of Islamabad controlled by the Capital Development Authority (hereinafter called C. D. A.), Rawalpindi Town, the Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi and Rawalpindi Cantonment Board. There existed a Slaughter House in Rawalpindi Town and Cantonment area. In pursuance of a scheme in 1963 sponsored and financed by C. D. A., the said Municipal Com--mittee, and Cantonment Board Rawalpindi, Islamabad Slaughter House was established in at Sehala at a distance of about 13 miles from Rawalpindi.
2. By a Notification dated 26-8-1970, Slaughter House Bye-laws framed by the Municipal Committee, under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, were sanctioned by the Commis--sioner, Rawalpindi. Under para. 21, fees for the slaughter of sheep/goat were fixed at Re. 1 each. Para. 22 prescribed that in addition to the above fee a fee of 0.15 per sheep/goat on account of cost of transportation shall be charged. The Notifica--tion provided that the bye-laws so far as the Municipal Committee was concerned would come into operation on such date as might be fixed by the Controlling Authority i.e., the Commissioner of Rawalpindi Division. By another Notification dated 12-6-1971, this date was fixed as 17-6-1971.
3. Before the High Court the parties raised the following two points : (1) that inasmuch as under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, the new Slaughter House was required to be maintained by the Municipal Committee and not by a Meat Board, the management by the latter is illegal.
(2) That under section 33 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, the Commissioner was not competent to sanction the aforesaid bye-laws.
4. Both the contentions were rejected by the High Court. The first, on the grounds that in a former Division Bench decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1403 of 1970, which was binding on the Single Judge, this very contention was not accepted, and that the learned Advocate for the petitioners subsequently gave up this contention.
5. The second contention was dismissed on the ground that the Commissioner had been delegated the powers under section 33 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, by the Provincial Government to impose the fee in question.
6. Before us, however, the petitioners have contended for the first time that the bye-laws are bad for being unreasonable on several grounds. Furthermore, that the bye-laws are bad because the authority have been guilty of discrimination inas--much as the butchers in the Cantonment area are being charged less than those of the Pindi Town. The latter, it is claimed, are charged according to the bye-laws, while the former are charged less than the fees prescribed under the bye-laws.
7. None of these contentions was raised before the High Court and cannot be permitted to be raised here for the first time. The contention, involve an inquiry into facts and on that ground alone the petition could have been dismissed by the High Court.
8. It is neither the normal function. Of the High Court while hearing a constitution petition nor of this Court to enter into ac enquiry of facts of the present description.
9. Again the bye-laws to which objection has now been take were sanctioned as early as 24-8-1970 and 12-6-1971, but the writ petition was filed to challenge them in April 1972. The writ petition, therefore, could also be dismissed in limine on the ground of laches.
10. There is no substance in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.